War, Inc.: Review By Fallenlords

Jul 23rd, 2008 by Fallenlords
Ugly like Joan Cusack
  • OVERALL
    1.5
    POOR
  • Story
  • Acting
  • Directing
  • Visuals
This movie is billed as a 'Political Satire', so I can only assume the satire is at the expense of the Iraq/Afghanistan ongoing wars. Fair enough we have a film trying to make a statement and utilising comedy to that end. Not really funny though is it when you relate it back to the real world, as we still have ongoing conflict.

Fine this film showed me how Corporate America has it's fingers in many different pie's and that perhaps war is more to do with profit, than any other motive. This is nothing I didn't already know. So bring on the comedy, oh what.... in the entire statement making we appear to have forgotten that aspect. Surely something must have been funny, nope not to my mind.

This film reminded me of Grosse Pointe Blank, put whereas that film was interesting and funny in parts. This one seems to have taken a similar concept and just built it around a Corporate Hitman and war in general.

The characters are ludicrous, but not in a good way. John Cusack is fine; I actually quite like him as an actor. But why, why, does he insist on having his ugly looking sister in nearly every film? She can't act, she looks terrible and all it goes to prove is that nepotism is rife in Hollywood. Who you know, not if you are any good. If I had a sister like that I would get her to change surnames, Joan NotrelatedtomeCusack.

The only redeeming factor to this film as a whole was Hilary Duff as Yonicka Babyyeah and that was only because she appealed to me as eye candy; I thought she looked better with dark hair!! She should keep that going; she looks a bit of a moose with blond hair in my opinion, though I doubt she cares much about that.

This film is pointless; they should have either made it a proper and serious film or a full blown comedy. Satire what does that even mean? I am not sure this lot know. From what I could tell their 'satire' for the large part mainly involved corporate branding of military equipment. Ho, ho, how funny is that. Perhaps the best bit of the film was when we see amputees with false limbs dancing, only to be told that the same equipment used to blow them up is now being used for their artificial limbs. What a hoot that was, satire at its best ... not!!!

I neither found this funny or informative. This is part written by John Cusack as well, I think he has started with the script of Grosse Pointe Blank and just set this in an imaginary Middle Eastern Country. What on earth was he thinking? This is a very poor effort at Political Satire one of the lamest films I have seen in a long time.

As for plot, well it really isn't worth mentioning because it's as ludicrous and ugly looking as Joan Cusack - in my opinion.

Do you like this review?

Comments (9)

  1. Fallenlords

    I think Awards pander to the industry as a whole and to an extent are based on perceived future revenues. As DVD sales for a film account for a significant chunk of the profit. It doesn't harm having 'Winner of XX Oscars' on the front.

    No Country for Old Men was a good film but Best Picture! I wouldn't personally rate it that highly. At the same time Best Foreign Language Film was 'The Counterfeiters' now this to my mind is an excellent film. It was well acted, it had a great story with a start/middle/end and it highlighted a piece of forgotten history in a compelling manner. But being Foreign Language, it wouldn't get the Oscar for Best Picture. Go figure.

    As for Joan Cusack, I judge actors by their ability to play different roles and seem different to me. If I keep saying to myself that is Joan Cusack, then to an extent she has failed to portray her character above her own personality.

    Once or twice this can happen, but I keep just keep seeing Joan Cusack. Her brother John on the other hand I see more as the character he plays, which to me means with regards to acting talent he has done his job well.

    This to me is the actor's main purpose, to make me believe in their character. Joan unfortunately doesn't do this for me, which brings me to the conclusion that she is not doing her job well. Regardless of plot, script or any other factors I should be able to believe in the character. If I believe in the character, then at least the actor has done their part.

    In hindsight my comment on the appearance of Joan and calling her ugly, was wrong. I think perhaps the underlying aspect is I find it hard to understand how/why she does get these parts. If she was particularly talented that would be one aspect, if she had the movie star looks that would be another. All in all I don't see anything, no reason she should be in this film apart from her brother. All I see is nepotism, which I loathe in every respect and in any industry.

    4 years agoby @fallenlordsFlag

  2. EmmaG

    BTW, Calling Joan ugly and running that title along with insulting her acting instead of critiquing wasn't any different than my use of profanity, It didn't help your review. Had you left that out then there could have been some decent discussion regarding the film.

    4 years agoby @emmagFlag

  3. EmmaG

    Okay you scored points! You took the higher road after the fact, so shall I. The title of your "piece" ... I find it hard to believe that you are at all sorry for the words. I guess I'll have to take your word for that.

    I know that it's pretty cool and sometimes even trendy to say "f*ck the academy" but really those votes are cast by other industry people and it's basically being judged by your peers. I for one find them to be a valid recognition of success in the industry. I also believe that there are many more films that don't get the accolade they should.

    Although I cannot speak for Joan Cusack I can take some educated guesses based on the information I have gathered reading/watching interviews with Actress Joan Cusack.

    About Joan and her acting, Joan decided a long time ago that she would leave L.A and go back home to Chicago. She also decided what was most important to her in life. Acting is just a side line at this point in Joan's life. She is a mother, wife and business woman first. She has turned down many rolls that have been offered to her so that she can be close to home. She selects her acting jobs based on whatever criteria she has set up for herself. Joan Cusack, is a very versatile actress and I'm sure as her children grow and she becomes more available we, if we are lucky will see that.

    I'm pretty sure that Joan's career in acting started before her brothers. Yes Joan would have jobs if John didn't cast her in his movies.

    I cannot give a review on Mr. Cusacks film, War Inc. The message is greater than my opinion. This is his baby, his tool, he gave it to all of us to watch and he's proud of it.

    Oh and I was harsh with you as well, I felt I needed to be, you can call me a bitch and I'd say "Meh, he's probably right." Joan deserves more respect than what was given here. I am sure your writing will improve, I guess you have a right to your opinion, as do I and I was responding.

    4 years agoby @emmagFlag

  4. Fallenlords

    Well considering Joan Cusack appears to be the same person/character in most films I have seen, that brings me to the conclusion that she can't act. I have already said I was harsh calling Joan Cusack ugly, so yes I do apologise for that. But to me she seems to be coasting along on her brother's coattails. I find it amazing the number of films they have starred in together. So would she get work if it wasn't for her brother? Personally I wonder. As for being Academy nominated, I suppose it depends on what store you place on such awards/nominations. Personally I don't place much value on these at all.

    I judge a films based on my own enjoyment level, on my own standards. To me a good film is a good film, regardless to an extent of actors, age, language, awards etc. This in particular is not a good film. What you take from my review is up to you, regardless of what you have to say I will still review the movies I like and don't like. If you have something worthwhile to say, then say it or at least go to the trouble to write your own review on this film. So I can reciprocate with comment.

    Whether I can write or not, isn't the issue. I am not getting paid for this as far as I know; it is an interest and a hobby. Perhaps over time my writing may improve. After all I am just expressing an opinion, my opinion. You express yours that is the general idea as far as I understand. I may not be as eloquent as some people; I may make a few mistakes. But at least I don't resort to profanity to get a point across.

    4 years agoby @fallenlordsFlag

  5. EmmaG

    You're a f*cking douche bag! You can't write worth sh*t yet we're here reading your crap. I shouldn't have even read as much as I did; However, I thought maybe this douche bag disguised as someone with a clue had a punch line that would make it all better. Then I saw that you not only call Joan ugly but then you some how decide that this incredible Academy nominated actress couldn't act? WTF is wrong with you? Didn't your mother teach you that if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all? Now that you wrote this crap you've opened yourself up to being critiqued on your talent as well. Luckily for you your credibility as a potential source for useful information ended when you stroked the keyboard when you should have been stroking your **** to relieve a bit of that pressure on your brain. As for critiquing your talent... I guess I'd want see how well you really do toss those salads jet boy!

    P.S, do us all a favour go upstairs, tell mommy you've been a very naughty boy and that you don't deserve to have your cable connection or your desserts for the next month.

    4 years agoby @emmagFlag

  6. Fallenlords

    I think if the attempted satire had been directed towards a definitive aim, I would have had a lot more respect for the film. To me I could imagine the current administrations having a good laugh about this film; they probably would get the punch lines. But I can't see them having any real concerns that something might seep into the public consciousness. How far can it send up Corporate America, when Corporate America has probably funded the film! I don't know who are the biggest hypocrites to be honest, the politicians or the actors that try to pass off their political convictions under the guise of entertainment. As this is classed as an Action/Comedy, I assume it is suppose to entertain?

    As for Joan Cusak, it was perhaps a little harsh to call her ugly. So far she hasn't made a lasting impression on me in any films. Though I haven't seen 16 Candles, but if I were a betting man I would imagine it also stars John Cusack!

    4 years agoby @fallenlordsFlag

  7. kjcinny1

    "Fair enough we have a film trying to make a statement and utilising comedy to that end. Not really funny though is it when you relate it back to the real world, as we still have ongoing conflict."

    This is the comment I was referring to. I guess I misunderstood, as you seem to be saying that the issues expressed through satire in the movie aren't funny, and are inappropriate given the issues' prevalence in the real world. However, I would assume that this is the goal of such satire - to challenge, to attack, to take our poisonous political climate and inflate it to excess in order to combat the sort of indifference pervading the country under the Bush administration. But I respect your opinion, and see what you're saying. If you think it's just satire done poorly, that's fine.

    I have to say though, I wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion of Joan Cusack. Have you seen her in 16 Candles?

    4 years agoby @kjcinny1Flag

  8. Fallenlords

    I was asking what satire meant in a rhetorical sense. I think I have a grasp of what satire involves, this film on the other hand does not and if anything is slapstick dressed up as satire.

    Dancing amputees is ironic and disturbing! Oh yes I found that ironic. Perhaps the irony was so above my grammatical level that it was somehow lost on me. That if anything was slapstick; it was done for a cheap laugh at the expense of less fortunate individual's. It was neither ironic nor disturbing, it was cheap.

    Who said anything about this film stopping the continuing conflict? Not me as far as I can see. I just found the film to be in poor taste, considering the current climate. Either it should have been bold and tried to make a real statement, or it should have focussed on the humour.

    4 years agoby @fallenlordsFlag

  9. kjcinny1

    First of all, how can you ask what satire means only to declare in your next breath that "this is a very poor effort at political satire"? Secondly, your grammar is appalling; if you're going to try to point out the film's faults and actually argue your point, you'd be taken a hell of a lot more serious if you proofread. And finally, how on earth is the FILM supposed to stop the "ongoing conflict" in the world? I think by adopting a satirical tone, rather than exclusively comedy, they are trying to point out the absurdity of the subject matter. Satire, by definition, does not have to be funny. The scene you describe here, in which the amputees are told that their artificial limbs, is ironic, and disturbing. If you're saying that you don't think it succeeds on those points, that's fine. But I think you're mistaking satire for slapstick comedy.

    4 years agoby @kjcinny1Flag